Plan Review: 114 Issues Found

Summary: 108 index entries | 64 perfect matches | 41 mismatched | 3 missing Mismatched (41): A1.1: Expected: DEMOLITION PLAN - FIRST LEVEL - SECTOR A (A1.1) | Actual: Demo Plan First Level - Sector A (A1.1)(p7) A1.2: Expected: DEMOLITION PLAN - FIRST LEVEL - SECTOR B (A1.2) | Actual: Demo Plan First Level - Sector B (A1.2)(p8) A1.3: Expected: DEMOLITION RCP - FIRST LEVEL - SECTOR A...

Why it matters: Addressing this before construction prevents rework and supports code compliance.

Suggested next step: Review drawings and specifications to resolve before construction.

RFI draft: Please clarify: Drawing Index Audit: 3 missing, 41 mismatched out of 108 sheets

Summary: The mechanical legend specifies that the hydrogen monitor (symbol 'HY') is to be installed at 48 inches above the finished floor (AFF). Hydrogen is a highly buoyant, lighter-than-air gas that rapidly accumulates at the ceiling or highest point of a space. Placing the monitor at 4 feet above the floor is a critical design error, as it will fail to detect hydrogen accumulation until the gas has f...

Why it matters: An improperly placed hydrogen monitor creates a severe explosion hazard and fails to provide the required explosion control functionality mandated by NCMC Section 310.1 (which requires compliance with the International Fire Code). This will result in a failed fire/life-safety inspection and requi...

Suggested next step: Please revise the installation height for the hydrogen monitor (symbol 'HY') to be located at the highest point of the ceiling in the protected space, in accordance with IFC explosion control requirements and manufacturer instructions for lighter-than-air gas detection.

RFI draft: Please revise the installation height for the hydrogen monitor (symbol 'HY') to be located at the highest point of the ceiling in the protected space, in accordance with IFC explosion control requirements and manufacturer instructions for lighter-...

Summary: There is a direct contradiction in room names and assignments between the Finish Schedule on sheet A2.5 and the Reflected Ceiling Plan on sheet A2.3. For example, Room 125 is identified as "VEST" in the schedule but as "BOILER ROOM 125" on the plan. Room 110 is listed as "MEN'S BASKETBALL LOCKER ROOM" in the schedule but shown as "WOMEN SHOWER 110" on the plan. Room 117 is listed as "WOMEN'S TO...

Why it matters: This severe mismatch makes it impossible to accurately determine the correct finishes, flooring, and ceiling systems for the rooms in Sector A. The schedule appears to reflect an outdated room numbering scheme or incorrect sector information. This will halt finish material procurement and install...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the Finish Schedule on sheet A2.5 is outdated or intended for a different sector. Provide an updated Finish Schedule with room names and numbers that match the First Level - Sector A floor plans.

RFI draft: Please clarify if the Finish Schedule on sheet A2.5 is outdated or intended for a different sector. Provide an updated Finish Schedule with room names and numbers that match the First Level - Sector A floor plans.

Summary: Sheets E1.1 (Sector A) and E1.2 (Sector B) reference each other via matchlines, but the architectural layouts and room designations do not align at these boundaries. E1.1 indicates 'TLT 116' and 'MEN VISITOR LOCKER ROOM 106' at the matchline, while E1.2 shows 'MEN TOILET 154', 'ENTRY 155', and 'OFFICE 156' at its corresponding matchline. Additionally, identical room numbers are assigned to comp...

Why it matters: Inconsistent matchlines indicate that the background architectural plans for the two sectors are out of sync or improperly aligned. Duplicate room numbers will cause severe confusion for electrical panel schedules, circuiting, and fixture installation, as contractors will not know which 'Room 106...

Suggested next step: Please review the architectural background plans for Sectors A and B to resolve the mismatch at the matchlines. Clarify the correct room layout and issue updated electrical drawings with coordinated, unique room names and numbers across all sectors.

RFI draft: Please review the architectural background plans for Sectors A and B to resolve the mismatch at the matchlines. Clarify the correct room layout and issue updated electrical drawings with coordinated, unique room names and numbers across all sectors.

Summary: Drawing A1.1 (Sector A) and drawing PD1.2 (Sector B) both use identical room numbers (e.g., 124, 126) for completely different spaces on the first level. For example, Room 124 is labeled 'POOL EQUIP' in Sector A, but 'GYNASIUM' in Sector B. Similarly, Room 126 is 'NATATO' (Natatorium) in Sector A, but 'VEST' (Vestibule) in Sector B.

Why it matters: Duplicating room numbers across different sectors of the same building floor will cause severe coordination issues for all trades during construction, RFIs, submittals, and future facility management. Workers and materials may be directed to the wrong location.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the room numbering system for the building. Should unique room number ranges (e.g., 100s for Sector A, 200s for Sector B) be established across all sectors to prevent coordination errors?

RFI draft: Please clarify the room numbering system for the building. Should unique room number ranges (e.g., 100s for Sector A, 200s for Sector B) be established across all sectors to prevent coordination errors?

Summary: Drawing A1.1 (Sector A) and drawing PD1.2 (Sector B) both utilize the exact same grid line coordinates (e.g., Grids 1-3 and B-C) for entirely different building footprints. For instance, the intersection of Grids 1-3 and B-C in Sector A shows 'CONCOURSE 108' and 'TICKET BOX', whereas the identical grid intersection in Sector B shows 'STAIR 127', 'VEST 125', and 'VEST 126'.

Why it matters: A continuous, unique grid line coordinate system is required across a single building project to accurately locate structural elements, walls, and utilities. Reusing the same grid coordinates in different sectors will cause massive confusion for structural layout and trade coordination.

Suggested next step: Please provide an updated, continuous grid line system for the entire building footprint that uniquely identifies all grid lines across Sector A, Sector B, and Sector C.

RFI draft: Please provide an updated, continuous grid line system for the entire building footprint that uniquely identifies all grid lines across Sector A, Sector B, and Sector C.

Summary: Drawing ED1.1 explicitly references a matchline to ED1.2 located adjacent to horizontal grid "B'" along vertical grids "13" through "17", adjacent to "TLT 116" and "MEN VISITOR LOCKER ROOM 106". Conversely, the corresponding matchline on drawing ED1.2 referencing ED1.1 is located at horizontal grid "J" along the same vertical grids "13" through "17", but is adjacent to entirely different rooms:...

Why it matters: Matchlines must physically align to correctly combine partial plans into a continuous, cohesive floor plan. The extreme misalignment of grid lines (B' vs J) and physical spaces creates an ambiguous and conflicting boundary between Sector A and Sector B. This will cause significant confusion regar...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct matchline location, grid references, and adjoining rooms connecting Sector A (ED1.1) and Sector B (ED1.2). Please reissue the plans with aligned matchline boundaries.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct matchline location, grid references, and adjoining rooms connecting Sector A (ED1.1) and Sector B (ED1.2). Please reissue the plans with aligned matchline boundaries.

Summary: The overall mechanical floor plan on M1.1 labels Room 115 as 'STORAGE', Room 118 as 'OFFICE', and Room 119 as 'OFFICE'. In direct contradiction, the Enlarged View (Detail 1/M1.1) on M1.3 labels Room 115 as 'WOMEN'S VOLLEYBALL LOCKER ROOM', Room 118 as 'MECHANICAL', and Room 119 as 'ATHLETIC TRAINING & WEIGHT ROOM'. Furthermore, M1.3 shows 'AHU-X2' inside Room 118, whereas M1.1 shows Room 118 as...

Why it matters: This indicates that one of the sheets is using an outdated or incorrect architectural background. This critical discrepancy prevents accurate coordination of mechanical equipment, ductwork routing, and room usage for this sector of the building.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct room designations and architectural layout for Rooms 115, 118, and 119. Confirm whether Room 118 is a Mechanical Room housing AHU-X2 or an Office, and update the mechanical drawings (M1.1 or M1.3) to reflect the correct, coordinated architectural bac...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct room designations and architectural layout for Rooms 115, 118, and 119. Confirm whether Room 118 is a Mechanical Room housing AHU-X2 or an Office, and update the mechanical drawings (M1.1 or M1.3) to reflect the correct,...

Summary: The mechanical plans for Sector A (M1.1) and Sector B (M1.2) cross-reference each other via matchlines, but the underlying architectural backgrounds and grid coordinates fundamentally contradict each other. At the matchline near vertical grids 13-17 and horizontal grid J, M1.1 depicts "TLT 116" and "EN VISITOR CKER ROOM 106" (Room 106), whereas M1.2 depicts "MEN TOILET 154", "ENTRY 155", and "O...

Why it matters: A matchline must represent a single, contiguous physical plane across both sheets to allow continuous routing of systems. The complete mismatch of room layouts and horizontal grid coordinates across the designated matchline indicates that the mechanical sheets are using misaligned or outdated arc...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct grid alignments and architectural backgrounds for the matchline connecting Sector A and Sector B. Provide updated mechanical plans (M1.1 and M1.2) with coordinated architectural backgrounds so that room layouts, grid intersections, and mechanical sys...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct grid alignments and architectural backgrounds for the matchline connecting Sector A and Sector B. Provide updated mechanical plans (M1.1 and M1.2) with coordinated architectural backgrounds so that room layouts, grid int...

Summary: Architectural Roof Plan A2.7 indicates a continuous expansion joint ('EXPANSION JOINT RJT-1') and explicitly notes to 'CONTINUE EJT TO F/O BLDG & TIE IN TO WALL TO CORNER JOINT WJT-2'. However, Structural Roof Framing Plan S-103 lacks this separation entirely; it shows a rigid, monolithic structural framing layout with continuous 'W10X15' beams spanning across this same area without any separat...

Why it matters: A building expansion joint requires the structural steel framework to be completely separated to allow for designated thermal and seismic movement. A rigid, continuous structural framing plan conflicts with the architectural joint and will result in uncontrolled cracking, structural stress, or pr...

Suggested next step: Architectural plan A2.7 requires an expansion joint (RJT-1) that ties into a wall joint (WJT-2). Structural plan S-103 shows continuous W10X15 roof framing in this area. Please advise if structural expansion joint framing (e.g., separated beams/columns or slide bearings) needs...

RFI draft: Architectural plan A2.7 requires an expansion joint (RJT-1) that ties into a wall joint (WJT-2). Structural plan S-103 shows continuous W10X15 roof framing in this area. Please advise if structural expansion joint framing (e.g., separated beams/co...

Summary: Under the 'LIGHTING CONTROLS DESIGN INTENT' Note 1, the drawings require each sensor-controlled space to include a 'MANUAL OVERRIDE TOGGLE SWITCH' that allows users to turn the lighting on or off 'REGARDLESS OF THE SENSOR STATUS.' This configuration explicitly bypasses the occupancy sensor's control, which directly violates the building code requirement that occupant sensor controls must automa...

Why it matters: Allowing users to permanently override the occupancy sensor will leave lighting on continuously when spaces are unoccupied, negating the energy savings intended by the code. This non-compliant control scheme will result in wasted energy and likely fail the energy code compliance inspection.

Suggested next step: Clarify that the manual controls must not bypass the automatic shutoff function of the occupancy sensors. Request that the sequence of operations be updated so that any manual override acts only as a temporary bypass or a vacancy mode, ensuring lights automatically turn off wi...

RFI draft: Clarify that the manual controls must not bypass the automatic shutoff function of the occupancy sensors. Request that the sequence of operations be updated so that any manual override acts only as a temporary bypass or a vacancy mode, ensuring li...

Summary: The electrical panel schedules specify 20A circuit breakers for several mechanical units (UV-AHU-03, EF-1, EF-3, EF-6, EF-8), but the Mechanical / Electrical Equipment Schedule restricts the Maximum Overcurrent Protection (MOCP) for each of these units to 15A. Installing circuit breakers that exceed the manufacturer's specified MOCP violates equipment listing requirements and NFPA 70.

Why it matters: Section C501.4 of the NCECC requires that alterations comply with NFPA 70. Exceeding the MOCP creates a significant fire hazard by allowing more current than the equipment's wiring is rated to safely handle before tripping, and it will result in a failed electrical inspection.

Suggested next step: Please revise the circuit breaker sizes in the electrical panel schedules to 15A for UV-AHU-03 (Panel K, Ckt 11), EF-1 (Panel I, Ckt 18), EF-3 (Panel F, Ckt 29), EF-6 (Panel H, Ckt 11), and EF-8 (Panel H, Ckt 14) to match the 15A MOCP limits specified in the mechanical schedule.

RFI draft: Please revise the circuit breaker sizes in the electrical panel schedules to 15A for UV-AHU-03 (Panel K, Ckt 11), EF-1 (Panel I, Ckt 18), EF-3 (Panel F, Ckt 29), EF-6 (Panel H, Ckt 11), and EF-8 (Panel H, Ckt 14) to match the 15A MOCP limits speci...

Summary: Keyed Note 6 instructs to install an outside air louver at least 3 feet below an exhaust louver, which applies to the closely placed louvers L-2 and L-3 outside MECH 105. While Section 401.4 allows air intakes to be 3 feet below 'hazardous or noxious contaminant sources', Section 501.3.1 strictly requires 'environmental air exhaust' to be separated by at least 10 feet from mechanical air intake...

Why it matters: Using only a 3-foot vertical separation instead of the required 10-foot distance risks drawing exhausted air directly back into the fresh air intake, degrading indoor air quality. This will cause failed mechanical inspections and require exterior facade rework or ductwork rerouting to achieve the...

Suggested next step: Please revise the location of the intake and exhaust louvers (L-2 and L-3) to provide a minimum of 10 feet of separation in accordance with NCMC 501.3.1, or clarify if the exhaust is considered a hazardous/noxious contaminant source that qualifies for the exception.

RFI draft: Please revise the location of the intake and exhaust louvers (L-2 and L-3) to provide a minimum of 10 feet of separation in accordance with NCMC 501.3.1, or clarify if the exhaust is considered a hazardous/noxious contaminant source that qualifies...

Summary: The "LOW LIMIT TEMPERATURE CONTROL" sequence dictates that the outside air damper modulates to a position less than the minimum damper position if the mixed air temperature drops below 50.0°F. Additionally, the "DEMAND CONTROL VENTILATION" sequence overrides the CO2 input to modulate the outside air damper closed if mixed air drops below the low limit setpoint. This violates the mechanical code...

Why it matters: Reducing the outdoor air supply below the code-required minimum compromises indoor air quality. While protecting the coil from freezing is necessary, normal operating sequences cannot sacrifice the code-mandated minimum ventilation air. The system's heating capacity must be designed to treat the ...

Suggested next step: Please revise the Sequence of Operation (Low Limit Temperature Control and Demand Control Ventilation) to ensure the outside air damper never modulates below the code-required minimum ventilation position during occupied periods. Confirm the preheat coil is sized adequately to...

RFI draft: Please revise the Sequence of Operation (Low Limit Temperature Control and Demand Control Ventilation) to ensure the outside air damper never modulates below the code-required minimum ventilation position during occupied periods. Confirm the prehe...

Summary: Plan 3 on drawing A2.8 contains a section marker that references Detail '2 / A5.0'. Detail 2 on A5.0 shows a 'PLASTIC-LAMINATE-CLAD BASE CABINET'. However, the interior elevation for this space (Elevation 19 on A2.8 for Women's Toilet 104) depicts an open, wall-hung vanity where the '6" High Integral Coved Resinous Base' is visible along the floor beneath the sinks. Additionally, the Toilet Acc...

Why it matters: Installing a solid base cabinet per Detail 2/A5.0 in the restroom would eliminate the required ADA knee clearance beneath the sinks. It also conflicts with the design intent clearly shown in the interior elevations and the accessory schedule.

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the restroom vanities should be open, wall-hung units per the interior elevations and accessory schedule. If so, please remove the reference to the base cabinet (Detail 2/A5.0) and provide the correct section detail for the restroom vanity assembly.

RFI draft: Please clarify if the restroom vanities should be open, wall-hung units per the interior elevations and accessory schedule. If so, please remove the reference to the base cabinet (Detail 2/A5.0) and provide the correct section detail for the restr...